Using extend simulation tool to study the logistic requirements of the standing contingency task force
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this research is twofold. First to discover and develop a tool that would enable the analysis of the deployed support requirements of the Canadian Forces (CF) new concept of a rapidly deployable, integrated, expeditionary amphibious force and second to use these tools to provide insights into the proposed options. This research follows the approach described by Averil M. Law and W. David Kelton with regards to the steps conducted in a simulation study. These steps include the continuing determination of the validity of the model/simulation to include the data required as an input and the output data as generated by the simulation. Wherever possible subject matter experts and current CF manuals will be used to access valid data. In order to validate if the model/simulation is working correctly a series of tests will be conducted and subject matter experts to discuss whether the model/simulation outputs where within expected values. Once the model/simulation has been validated it will be used to conduct experiments into the supportability of the various proposed options for the Standing Contingency Task Force.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it